The old question about a tree falling in the forest is relevant here. Does the tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it?
If a scandal erupts and the press doesn't cover it, is it a scandal?
If this sounds strange, consider that, since the dawn of time, whatever has passed for mainstream news has substituted for the direct observation of events by humans. The press has functioned as the eyes and ears and even mouths of the public.
If someone tells you, "I am your eyes, trust me," and then they fail, on purpose, to see something vital, where are you if you trust them? You're blind.
Two giant vaccine scandals are in progress at the moment. The mainstream press is mentioning them, here and there, but without any intent to raise alarms, dig in, investigate, and get down to the core of what they mean.
The first scandal revolves around the flu vaccine for the current year. As I recently wrote, a new study has concluded the vaccine has a very low effectiveness rate. Why? Because the vaccine is produced using chicken eggs, and in that medium, the flu virus—which is intentionally placed in the eggs—mutates. Therefore, it isn't the same virus which is causing flu this year.
FiercePharma reports: "Based on data from Australia, which already had its flu season, scientists warn that this season's flu shot might be only 10% effective. And the reason for such a low level of protection might lie in the method by which the majority of flu vaccines are made: in eggs."
Ten percent effectiveness. Now that's ridiculous. And it's assuming you accept the whole model of how vaccines work—that they actually do protect (safely) against disease, rather than, at best, repressing the visible symptoms of the disease.
Amidst their spotty coverage of this scandal, here is what the press is failing to mention: the problem with the flu vaccine isn't just a 2017 flaw.
It's been the same problem ever since chicken eggs have been used to manufacture the vaccine.
Healthline.com: "The majority of flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, a method of vaccine development that's been used for 70 years."
Hello? Anyone home?
Seventy years. The same problem.
The same "low effectiveness" problem.
That's a page-one story with a giant headline. That's the lead item on the nightly news. That's a pounding investigative series about the lunatic promotion of a massively ineffective—but universally promoted—vaccine going back decades and decades.
But it isn't a giant headline. It isn't an investigation. It's a here-today-gone-tomorrow piece. That's all.